I know I am not fully in line with the instructions, but I would like to focus my post on the benefits of simulation compared to reality. Some of the readings of this week discussed this topic, and I found this question quite fascinating, as the answer will guide the decision on whether using simulation in the classroom or not.
Simulations are based on models. Models are normally understood as simplified representations of a reality (of what the modeler understands as reality), in order to be able to focus on those issues that the modeler finds most important (Winter&Haux, 2011). Thus, in this definition, simulations simplify the reality with the intention to help students learn.
Indeed, students may learn better in simplified, “constrained” environments (Finkelstein, 2005). Why is this? First, simulations may offer “visual clues”, making concepts visible that would otherwise be invisible (such as the flow of electrons in a wire) (Finkelstein, 2005). Second, a simulation avoids any distraction of students that may interfere with successful learning (e.g. no misunderstanding of different colors of wire), instead helps to focus the student on the relevant details (Finkelstein, 2005). Third, in a simulation variables can be changed much more easily than in a real lab situation. Fourth, a simulation is less expensive than real lab classes, especially for large number of students (Srinivasan, 2006).
Yet, as Finkelstein (2005) notes, this may stand in contrast to the “conventional wisdom” that students may learn most with hands-on experience. He thus conducted an experiment: Two groups of university students attending a physics course were compared regarding their mastery of physical concepts. One group used real lab equipment to learn about electron flow, the other group used simulation (the PhET Circuit Construction Kit). Overall, 231 students participated in the experiment. Data was collected by the researchers via observation of the sessions, analysis of lab documentation, time needed to solve the lab exercises, and performance on selected questions in the final exams. Results show that the simulation group outperformed the lab group both in understanding of the physical concepts as well as in their ability to describe their circuit. The authors conclude that simulation can replace traditional real lab. However, they also discuss that simulations are not “the magic bullet”, and that they do not proposed to skip all lab classes. But still, they argue, there is a place for simulations in university education, and depending on the context, the outcome may be better compared to traditional labs.
Interestingly, students themselves may prefer real lab versus simulation. In another study, undergraduate and graduate students that worked with a simulation were studied (Srinivasan, 2006). All students were exposed both to MatLab-based simulation and to traditional lab classes. No differences in learning outcome could be detected (Srinivasan, 2004). A smaller number of students were also interviewed. Interviews showed that a majority of the students perceived the software simulation as a kind of “fake” (Srinivasan, 2006, p. 137). More than half of the students would have preferred “real” lab classes.
What is my summary: Simulations have their place and can lead to even better learning than traditional labs. Yet, students in certain contexts may consider simulations as “not real” and not “authentic” (Srinivasan, 2006).
Question: Did you observe an impact of simulations on learning, compared to traditional lab-based teaching?
References:
Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 137-141.
Srinivasan, S. (2004). Implementation of an integral signals and systems laboratory in electrical engineering courses: A study. MA, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Winter, A., Haux, R (2011). Health Information Systems. 2nd edition. New York: Springer.
Hi Elske
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. A quote that stuck out to me in the readings by Srinivasan, et al. (2006) was “they seem to need/want authenticity to be able to make the connections the experts make with the simulations” (p. 140). I took this quote to mean that students need hands-on-experiences prior to being immersed in a virtual world. At times I do believe that we perceive virtual worlds as a simplified, computerized version of the real world. As you had stated, these environments are easily controlled and there is no need to account for unforeseen circumstances. But is that really what our students want?
Another quote that stood out came from Finklestein, et al. (2005): “in a small study of university students’ use of computers to prepare for laboratories, found that students made greater conceptual gains when using computer to prepare for laboratory than those who used the textbook” (p, 1). Well I think that many of our students would choose a simulation over a textbook, but what if they were provided three options instead of two: textbook, simulation, or field experience. The readings last week indicated that when completed, students reported a positive reaction to simulated learning; stating that is was an enjoyable way to learn. They were however, unanimous in their view that it was not a substitute for a real field experience (Spicer & Stratford, 2001).
So although I do believe that students feel that engaged and motivated by simulated learning experiences; I would not say that it should be at the expense of field experiences.
You make an interesting point comparing textbook, vs simulation, vs field experience. I think with all three options it’s possible for students to breeze through without really engaging in the learning experience. Too many times I have seen students in a science centre who treat it like an indoor playground and play with exhibits without pausing to unpack the science concepts. In all three situations I think the guiding hand of an expert is essential for learners to make the most of the experience.
Hi Elske
I like the fact that you discussed simulations and hands-on activities. Five-six years ago, when I created our high school online classes — I included many simulations. Now we are revamping the courses and also, including more hands-on activities. We are trying to find activities that students can do with equipment/materials that they can find at home. We are also, thinking about creating kits with science materials.
I wonder if online science high school students will learn more from simulations or hands-on activities. A good next step might be for me to read the Finkelstein (2005) study carefully and see if the study can be recreated for my online science classes.
Christopher
Hi Elske.
I agree with the sentiment that there is no magic bullet. Simulations have their place in science, but so do hands-on activities, “real” labs, collaboration, teacher-directed learning, and much more. I don’t believe students would enjoy any class with one particular method of instruction more than a diverse class. I also don’t believe they would learn as well. What simulations do well is to give the opportunity for students to manipulated parameters more rapidly than with lab equipment and to work with parameters not possible in classrooms otherwise. Many simulations also excel at data generation and immediate feedback, both of which can support the scaffolding of learning. I really appreciate Chris’s comment to add more hands-on activities to online courses to help engage students better. Simulations are not the answer to everything and vary in quality and engagement. There is no magic bullet to good teaching, but good teaching employs varied and differentiated methods of instruction, of which quality use of relevant simulations can be a tool in the toolbox.
Dave
You make an interesting point about student preference for hands-on experiences. I think part of making simulations interesting for students is talking about the work of scientists. Sometimes scientists are working in the field with hands-on experiences and sometimes they are in the lab running computer simulations. This has been something of a new realization for me. I often have talked with students about the work of a writer because that’s more of my personal context, but I wonder if I spent more time storying the work of a scientist if students would be more willing to engage in science work?